Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XII

[Fortinbras]

I've seen a lot of depictions of knights and well-armed infantry in pictures and movies wearing mail chausses when fighting on foot. Can anybody who's actually worn mail speak to practicality of doing this?

[Galloglaich]

Regarding the Kurkri, hard to say anything definitively, but in the hands of a genuine Gurkha, they seem to be bloody effective

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishnu_Shrestha

G

[Mr Beer]

Cool, thanks for replies all.

This came about because of a long standing thought process I've had concerning how "real world" superheroes might act. Say you have a situation where some people acquire low grade superpowers, like a sort of Wild Cards deal and some of them end up fighting a lot, would they end up using hand weapons tailored to get the most out of their strength?

I can see how high-end superheroes would only use fists, if you can punch through tanks, pretty much anything you hit someone with is going to fall apart. But maybe there's a sweet spot here where some of these guys would use enhanced human weapons.

I agree a scaled up 25x fist impact would be lethal, I'm thinking about weapons though because:

1. Presumably the extra reach would be useful.

2. Assuming the super-person is resistant but not immune to human-strength weapon strikes, parrying could still be useful.

3. I think a weapon would still do more damage than fists, therefore useful against heavily armoured opponents/metal shields and the like.

4. He might need the extra momentum in order to effectively leverage his superhuman strength - see below.

Is this reasonable or not really?

With regards to the 25x figure, it is kind of pulled out of thin air. My estimation is that the strongest possible human is about x5 stronger than a normal, physically active man. So the superhuman in question is as strong to world's strongest man (WSM) as the WSM is to Joe Average. As I said, definitely superhuman but not high-end Marvel type strength. He's not throwing cars at helicopters, for example.

For scaling fist damage, it makes sense that 25x lifting strength doesn't equal 25x punching force. I'm not really sure exactly what I've got in mind here...I "feel" that the superhuman should hit a lot harder than a human but without being "super fast" as well, I don't think x25 as hard.

Now, if this punch scaling does not occur, it makes sense to have a super-heavy weapon, no? By being strong enough to swing that weapon, he would do a lot of damage due to the additional momentum?

If that's the case, does it make sense to construct the weapon from exotic material? If an oversized sword doesn't make sense, what about some kind of club made of tungsten carbide? Or some strong alloy wrapped around a depleted uranium core, to concentrate the impact?

Again, thanks for the replies all, if this is against the idea of a Real World thread, I can move this to it's own thread. I just wanted to take advantage of a cluster of weapon experts.

[warty goblin]

Just use a big iron pry-bar. Even wimpy little me can wreck stuff pretty well with one.

[Thiel]

I'd go in a completely different direction. With 25 times normal strength he'll be more than capable of handling an MG3 on full auto as well as one of those 500 round ammo backpacks the US Army tried to develop in the sixties. Heck, he could probably handle two or three times as much ammo as that and a complete set of Class IV body armour.

[warty goblin]

I'd go in a completely different direction. With 25 times normal strength he'll be more than capable of handling an MG3 on full auto as well as one of those 500 round ammo backpacks the US Army tried to develop in the sixties. Heck, he could probably handle two or three times as much ammo as that and a complete set of Class IV body armour.

That, or one of those nifty grenade machine guns they have now. Why shoot them when you can explode them?

[Mr Beer]

I'd go in a completely different direction. With 25 times normal strength he'll be more than capable of handling an MG3 on full auto as well as one of those 500 round ammo backpacks the US Army tried to develop in the sixties. Heck, he could probably handle two or three times as much ammo as that and a complete set of Class IV body armour.

Well if it comes to that, I would think an M2 50 Cal heavy machine gun would be the go, weight divided by 25 = less than 2 kilos equivalent. But I was specifically thinking of melee weapons.

I did contemplate an oversized version of an AA-12 full automatic shotgun, maybe...4 gauge? Could be interesting for room clearing anyway.

[lsfreak]

I'd go in a completely different direction. With 25 times normal strength he'll be more than capable of handling an MG3 on full auto as well as one of those 500 round ammo backpacks the US Army tried to develop in the sixties. Heck, he could probably handle two or three times as much ammo as that and a complete set of Class IV body armour.

The 25mm autocannon fitted on several IFV's is in the 250 pound range, which is proportionally a third or more lighter than a light machine gun. It would need modification, of course, for holding/feeding/aiming/firing.

[Mr Beer]

Thinking about it, it would be criminal not to use one of these, at least for rifle purposes:

[Brother Oni]

Just use a big iron pry-bar. Even wimpy little me can wreck stuff pretty well with one.

Indeed. It was Billy Butcher's go to weapon in The Boys, which is a deconstruction of the superhero genre (he was a superpowered government agent).

One small thing missing from all the force calculations earlier - bear in mind that all that force is going to be concentrated in the impact area the size of a human fist, thus the penetration is going to be significantly increased.

This isn't including more advanced hand to hand techniques like foreknuckle punches or knife hands.

[Mr Beer]

Indeed. It was Billy Butcher's go to weapon in The Boys, which is a deconstruction of the superhero genre (he was a superpowered government agent).

Implyin' I don't know The Butcha? Are you 'avin a bubble mate?

[Brother Oni]

Implyin' I don't know The Butcha? Are you 'avin a bubble mate?

Sorry mate, fought you woz a septic.

[JustSomeGuy]

Is this some southern ***** joke that northern ***** don't get?

[Mr Beer]

Is this some southern ***** joke that northern ***** don't get?

We was talkin' Cockney guv, bit of the old banter what kept our spirit alive in the Blitz. Apples and pairs, knees up round the joanna, ain't the Queen muvva got a lovely smile, know what I mean guv?

[Knaight]

Well if it comes to that, I would think an M2 50 Cal heavy machine gun would be the go, weight divided by 25 = less than 2 kilos equivalent. But I was specifically thinking of melee weapons.

Flat out dividing the weight doesn't work for a few reasons, starting with elongated systems and torque. Lets take an extreme here, and assume the character is using something like an over sized sledgehammer, which they can do compliments of super strength. Now, say that the sledgehammer ends up with the middle on top of a narrow surface somehow, more or less at rest - this isn't hugely plausible, but it . Regardless of how strong the character is, if the hammer is heavier than they are the end will move down, they will be pulled up, and mass is going to end up far more relevant than strength.

Now, that's obviously somewhat contrived, but the principle remains the same at more plausible levels. Super strength doesn't really solve issues with extreme mass particularly well, and that mass does create big forces if it is being thrown around, at which point problems along the lines of frictional forces between the wielder and the ground not being sufficient due to their low weight suddenly arise. They might be able to slam a heavy vehicle with a ridiculously heavy club, but they will slide around on impact, which is profoundly unhelpful. As such, even with very dramatic strength weight increase is probably not the best idea, particularly if it is on something that will move a lot.

[Mr Beer]

Yeah, that makes sense, I had realised that wielding a weapon say, as heavy as they are, would be a bad idea for the reasons you described. But I hadn't considered stance/friction issues with lighter weights.

[AgentPaper]

Not to mention Newton's Law. Punch someone with enough force to send them through a brick wall, and you can be sure that there's an identical hole in the wall behind you as well. (because you went flying through it)

[Brother Oni]

Not to mention Newton's Law. Punch someone with enough force to send them through a brick wall, and you can be sure that there's an identical hole in the wall behind you as well. (because you went flying through it)

This doesn't sound right to me. Somebody mentioned earlier that a boxer can generate about 5000N of force, more than enough to knock their opponent flying, but since a boxing match doesn't resemble a wuxia film, I think the physics is more complicated than it seems.

I'm not a physicist, but if you apply more force than the opposing object can generate, won't the force simply carry on through the object, sending it flying, and continue on its original vector at a reduced rate?

Edit: Oh sorry, did you mean within the context of super strength and the strong man generating more force than the frictional forces between the ground and himself?

[Thiel]

Flat out dividing the weight doesn't work for a few reasons, starting with elongated systems and torque. Lets take an extreme here, and assume the character is using something like an over sized sledgehammer, which they can do compliments of super strength. Now, say that the sledgehammer ends up with the middle on top of a narrow surface somehow, more or less at rest - this isn't hugely plausible, but it . Regardless of how strong the character is, if the hammer is heavier than they are the end will move down, they will be pulled up, and mass is going to end up far more relevant than strength.

Now, that's obviously somewhat contrived, but the principle remains the same at more plausible levels. Super strength doesn't really solve issues with extreme mass particularly well, and that mass does create big forces if it is being thrown around, at which point problems along the lines of frictional forces between the wielder and the ground not being sufficient due to their low weight suddenly arise. They might be able to slam a heavy vehicle with a ridiculously heavy club, but they will slide around on impact, which is profoundly unhelpful. As such, even with very dramatic strength weight increase is probably not the best idea, particularly if it is on something that will move a lot.

Hence why I suggested the MG3. Suppressive fire from the hip standard ops for patrol sections when they are attacked. With super strength accurate shooting from the shoulder should be perfectly possible.

This doesn't sound right to me. Somebody mentioned earlier that a boxer can generate about 5000N of force, more than enough to knock their opponent flying, but since a boxing match doesn't resemble a wuxia film, I think the physics is more complicated than it seems.

I'm not a physicist, but if you apply more force than the opposing object can generate, won't the force simply carry on through the object, sending it flying, and continue on its original vector at a reduced rate?

That's because the boxer is moving into the punch, so the force has to stop him before he can start to move backwards. It's the same reason why open bolt firearms tends to have lower felt recoil than an equivalent closed bolt weapon. A portion of the recoil forces goes into stopping the bolt rather than into the shooter's shoulder.

[Rhynn]

This doesn't sound right to me. Somebody mentioned earlier that a boxer can generate about 5000N of force, more than enough to knock their opponent flying, but since a boxing match doesn't resemble a wuxia film, I think the physics is more complicated than it seems.

I'm not a physicist, but if you apply more force than the opposing object can generate, won't the force simply carry on through the object, sending it flying, and continue on its original vector at a reduced rate?

Edit: Oh sorry, did you mean within the context of super strength and the strong man generating more force than the frictional forces between the ground and himself?

Yeah, a naive application of Newton's laws pretty much ignores the actual physics of combat. If you're punching someone, you're probably going to be stepping or at least turning into it (you couldn't be exerting that much force if you weren't, since punching power comes from the legs and the waist, from moving forward and from turning into it); and the reason people get knocked back isn't because they're hit by a force that propels them back, it's because they're put out of balance. To knock someone over, you only need to apply enough force to move part of their body so they overbalance. Getting your head jerked back hard and fast might do it, and losing consciousness even for a split second from your brain getting jolted against your skull is going to help!

For instance, many people who actually shoot people will swear that bullets really do throw you back in impact, but that's a physical impossibility, at least naively. The effects are more complicated, both physically and psychologically. Obviously, the movie effect of flying back with all limbs in the air never happens. People may get unbalanced or get really damn frightened really damn suddenly, basically, and flail around and fall over.

[Mr Beer]

Not to mention Newton's Law. Punch someone with enough force to send them through a brick wall, and you can be sure that there's an identical hole in the wall behind you as well. (because you went flying through it)

I think if you punched someone hard enough to send them through a brick wall, you would have hit them hard enough to punch right through their chest instead and no-one goes flying anywhere, except maybe some of the punchee's lungs. But maybe you're talking about 2 supers hitting each other?

[Mr Beer]

For instance, many people who actually shoot people will swear that bullets really do throw you back in impact, but that's a physical impossibility, at least naively. The effects are more complicated, both physically and psychologically. Obviously, the movie effect of flying back with all limbs in the air never happens. People may get unbalanced or get really damn frightened really damn suddenly, basically, and flail around and fall over.

Not that I hold this up to be a definitive Source of Truth, but I saw a Mythbuster's episode in which they investigated whether bullets might throw someone back.

They hung pig carcasses up with a sort of hook arrangement so if they were pushed back significantly, the carcass would fall off. Then they shot at them with various firearms.

The conclusion was taking a full load from a 12 gauge might be hard enough to knock you over but pistols/rifles/light automatic fire wouldn't and that people fell over for the reasons you described and possibly sometimes because they expected to fall over if shot.

[Brother Oni]

For instance, many people who actually shoot people will swear that bullets really do throw you back in impact, but that's a physical impossibility, at least naively. The effects are more complicated, both physically and psychologically. Obviously, the movie effect of flying back with all limbs in the air never happens. People may get unbalanced or get really damn frightened really damn suddenly, basically, and flail around and fall over.

I think Mythbusters did a test on this and found that anything smaller than a .50 was unable to knock their test dummy off the rig (and even that was barely able to). A shotgun managed to do it, but they had to be fairly close so that all the pellets hit the target.

To support your flailing argument, there's an old video about of a disgruntled former client attacking a lawyer on camera with a small calibre revolver (I think a .38). The lawyer managed to keep a telegraph pole between him and his attacker and walked away from the incident after the client ran out of ammo, even though he had been shot several times (presumably in non-fatal areas).

[Rhynn]

The conclusion was taking a full load from a 12 gauge might be hard enough to knock you over but pistols/rifles/light automatic fire wouldn't and that people fell over for the reasons you described and possibly sometimes because they expected to fall over if shot.

That last bit is probably part of it, yes. As far as I know (from reading up on wound ballistics, FBI reports, etc., for purposes of a realistic cyberpunk combat system; I'm no expert or pro, just a nerd), a lot of the effects of being shot are psychological. Some people "shut down" mentally when they get shot.

Conversely, some people are Michael Platt or William Matix, and keep shooting and killing despite numerous gunshot wounds (including lethal wounds), mostly because of their psychology. (Being trained as a Marine or a Ranger no doubt helps.)

[Straybow]

I think if you punched someone hard enough to send them through a brick wall, you would have hit them hard enough to punch right through their chest instead and no-one goes flying anywhere, except maybe some of the punchee's lungs. But maybe you're talking about 2 supers hitting each other?

No, a fist doesn't impart its momentum that quickly. The puncher drives through the target, continuing to exchange momentum from body movement after the initial impact.

Somebody makes a fist-sized projectile that fires from a shotgun. I dunno if it has a special cartridge, but in any case it is a giant slug of comparatively soft plastic. It's designed to break bones and disable without penetration.

[Beleriphon]

No, a fist doesn't impart its momentum that quickly. The puncher drives through the target, continuing to exchange momentum from body movement after the initial impact.

Somebody makes a fist-sized projectile that fires from a shotgun. I dunno if it has a special cartridge, but in any case it is a giant slug of comparatively soft plastic. It's designed to break bones and disable without penetration.

Yeah, fists are designed quite explicitly not to penetrate the body. I've read some interesting research that suggests that early hominids got a bit of an advantage in the hand arrangement department (ie. our thumbs) when it came to fighting other hominids. It basically gave our evolutionary ancestors a built in weapon to fight each other with, and those that could form tighter fists had better natural weapons.

[Mr Beer]

No, a fist doesn't impart its momentum that quickly. The puncher drives through the target, continuing to exchange momentum from body movement after the initial impact.

Somebody makes a fist-sized projectile that fires from a shotgun. I dunno if it has a special cartridge, but in any case it is a giant slug of comparatively soft plastic. It's designed to break bones and disable without penetration.

I'm confident a fist would penetrate a human if it imparted sufficient momentum to drive that person through a brick wall. There's a huge difference between forcibly knocking someone back and accelerating them to the point where they smash through rigid architecture.

[Force]

Short and sweet-- how lethal is, say, a hundred grams of explosive at close quarters?

Long and (hopefully not) sour: For a freeform Stargate RP, I'm considering creating a very small, flying drone that can fly near enemies under active camoflauge and detonate near their heads. It uses naquadah (substance that basically multiplies explosive effect, a 1 megaton nukes becomes a 1.2 gigaton nuke, etc) wrapped in advanced chemical explosives for its payload. My question is, how energetic would the payload have to be in grams of TNT-equivalent to turn the enemy's head into chunky salsa?

Shaping the blast so it turns into a plasma jet that fries the head is also a possibility.

[fusilier]

I think Mythbusters did a test on this and found that anything smaller than a .50 was unable to knock their test dummy off the rig (and even that was barely able to). A shotgun managed to do it, but they had to be fairly close so that all the pellets hit the target.

There was an interesting discussion on a physics forum about what kind of bullet would be more "damaging" -- their consensus was that older, bigger rounds would do more damage. Damage being derived from force, the older rounds had more momentum (even though newer ones had more energy). I would suspect that if you are looking to knock someone over, a large caliber musket would probably do a better job of it. Even then, it's not going to send someone "flying" through the air, but might be enough force to knock them off balance . . . depending upon where the projectile hit.

EDIT-- Civil War soldiers often reported that being shot by a musket ball felt like being "kicked by mule." Also, they were known to tear their uniforms off, looking for the wound -- they were in shock and couldn't actually tell where they had been hit.

[Mr Beer]

Short and sweet-- how lethal is, say, a hundred grams of explosive at close quarters?

I'm far from expert, but the lethality of the explosion itself varies radically with distance. So 100g of any modern explosive detonated in contact with the skull would be instantly lethal but if it was 3 metres away, probably not deadly (though it would be terrible for their eardrums).

This concussion grenade has 200g of TNT in it and is apparently lethal to 2 metres in the open:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK3A2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_grenade

Frag grenades kill further out but use shrapnel to kill.

If I had some sci-fi substance that multiplies the explosive effect by x1,200 as you've stated, then I would use a drone the size of a small insect with a 0.1g payload that lands on the target's head or neck before exploding. Instant kill and hard to see it coming